Passion, fear play key roles in gun control arguments
One of the very early concerns of our new nation a bit more than two centuries ago was how to meet the threat of a hostile adversary, perhaps even the reemergence of an England seeking revenge. Given the fragility of our infant state and its almost non-existent military might, our Founders understood that “A well-regulated Militia [was] necessary to the security of a free State,” therefor adding the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution asserting “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms . . . ” — a right still in effect and still protected by our nation’s most sacred document.
Since those early days we have established an Army and Navy to protect our rights and developed tanks and battleships and military aircraft to further assist them in those duties. Nevertheless, the ruling of that 2nd Amendment allowing civilians to bear arms still remains an undisputed right.
A display case in Ann Arbor Arms, a gun store in Ann Arbor.
Laura Blodgett | For AnnArbor.com
That should be enough to relieve the concerns of the most impassioned gun owners, but seems not to be. The charge by today’s pro-gun lobbyists accusing our nation’s political leadership of treasonous intentions to confiscate everyone’s guns, is offensive, not only to our leadership, but to the integrity of our system of government. That fear of being out-gunned by an antagonistic nation is now more a reflection of the business-oriented tactics of today’s gun manufacturers than as a serious concern over dangers accompanying the loss of private weapons. Accusing our public officials of trying to subvert the Constitution by confiscating all privately-owned guns is a serious and fanciful insult to our traditions, to our leadership and to the essence of our democratic system.
The gun lobby’s contention, or more specifically the NRA’s, seems to be that guns should be free of restrictions, that magazines (containers holding the ammunition) should be unlimited in capacity and that time between shots should be as nearly instantaneous as possible. The alleged purpose of privately owned guns always had been either for personal protection or as a sport, using them for target shooting or in hunting. In view of its intended end use it is a bit difficult to comprehend the connection between the love of guns and the demand for their most deadly and extreme capabilities.
Demand for the downgrading or elimination of all legal gun restrictions should be measured against the use of the automobile. Cars, fully accepted as an essential part of the routines of our daily lives, receive no special legal or constitutional consideration. Even with such universal acceptance we still impose speed limits, and have instituted seat belt requirements, and have forbidden driving while under the influence of alcohol, and demand regular physical check-ups well into old age. In short, public safety remains a major component of driving regulations. Why should guns be exempt?
Underlying today’s vitriolic discussions of “citizens’ rights” and “democratic principles” and “constitutional protection” is the passion for and the fear of guns. The role of guns has an old and very colorful place in our nation’s history, but in the centuries since the settling of the West our history has changed. The necessity of protecting our homes and families from the lawless chaos of that period’s Wild West, or from the impassioned revenge of some of our cruelly displaced American Indians, escalated the gun trade to the often singular role of protector of the law.
But those days have faded. Now we too often find ourselves seeking protection from our untrained, heavily armed neighbors - and that is a level of security that can be as deadly as the crime.
Comments
Bruce W
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 4:48 p.m.
Cars that will go 200mph are legal to own, there is no special training needed to buy one of those cars as compared to buying a Prius, so if you want to compare guns to cars shouldn't everyone that buys a vehicle that can go faster than the speed limit have to get certified each year to make sure they can drive safely at 80 or 100 mph? Look at the crime statistics available here on AA.com and you will see that we need guns to protect ourselves now MORE than they did back in the Wild West days, crime is everywhere, if 3 or 4 guys break into my house and threaten my family they will meet my guns and with a 30 round mag. I can shoot them all until I don't feel threatened any longer, if they don't want to be shot that many times maybe they should break into your house and threaten your family. I work hard for what I have and if someone tries to take from me they will find they picked the wrong person to steal from, I have no criminal record, have never been to jail, but I will kill to defend my family and what I have worked for. If my neighbors don't like it that I own guns they can move into a community that prohibits guns like Chicago and New York where the crime rates are higher and their chance of getting shot are MUCH higher.
Jenny
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 5:23 p.m.
You are absolutely correct, we do need guns here in ann arbor more than ever. The police force has been reduced a lot, and crime has been going up. There have been a lot of armed robberies, home invasions and even rapes in these past few years. On top of that, I don't know about you, but I have seen some of the ann arbor police (heavy set women who like to park illegally and eat fast food.. and no I'm not making this up I've seen it multiple times), and I wouldn't depend on them for anything! Protecting yourself, your home and your family, is ultimately your own responsibility, so you better be proactive about it.
Joe
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 4:38 p.m.
Firstly, anyone who says rifles in the hands of millions would lose to the most powerful military on the earth are foolish. If our government became tyrannical to the point where revolution becomes necessary, the majority of the military would join the civilian rebels to fight Washington D.C.. If they didn't, a mob of millions of armed rebels would over throw the government just as easily as the Libyan revolution and Syrian revolution is going forward, if not easier, since our population is more armed than Syria's. Asymetric warfare has been proven to be fatal to super powers. Afganistan vs. soviets, afganistan vs. americans (we did better since we were not as tyrannical and the people joined us), Vietnam Vs. the americans even with the south on our side we got our butts handed to us from a well trained armed force of rifle bearing civilians essentially. As for the 2nd amendment and its relevance today, I think military related stuff should be regulated it as is it is. You cannot easily obtain a machine gun without a ton of bureaucratic paper work, interviews, and a tax stamp. You cannot buy a fully armed Apache helicopter without a ton of paperwork either. Much like the AR-15, the internet is also of military origin and the founding fathers would have never foresaw its capabilities to spread misinformation, does that mean that the constitution (1st amendment) does not apply to this military technology either?
Jenny
Mon, Feb 11, 2013 : 5:38 a.m.
Yeah another brilliant comment Hesh... NOT!
Ricebrnr
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 10:36 p.m.
Love it when one of you steps in it. Where are they now? Why most of them are home and acquitted. http://www.freep.com/article/20120327/NEWS06/120327048/Judge-dismisses-critical-charges-in-Hutaree-case Of course they are probably bankrupted by the defense needed against the over zealous prosecutors and Feds but they aren't here to take away anyone's guns right?
Hesh Breakstone
Sat, Feb 9, 2013 : 1 p.m.
There is... or was a group in Lenawee County known as the Hutaree who also expressed notions much like yours. Where are they now?
Jenny
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.
There have been some people commenting on this thread (probably the same person with multiple accounts) spreading misinformation, so I'd like to set the record straight - the bushmaster was not used in the sandy hook killings: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 this is directly from MSNBC. Please everyone, before you formulate your opinion, please get the facts straight and realize the real debate is not about guns being dangerous, but it is about your civil liberties.
Mitch
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 7:48 p.m.
I have been in legally armed in Ann Arbor Public schools with out much fan fare. Most do not notice. If you stop me be warned, I am recording.
Hesh Breakstone
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 11:42 a.m.
1) I own guns... 2) I do not believe the the 2nd amendment was intended to permit all citizens to have "weapons of mass destruction/killing" or, in other words, assault style weapons. 3) I'm highly trained and an expert marksman.... 4) Guns in schools is a really, really, really bad idea. Even Sky Marshals go through training over and over again related to the discharge of a deadly weapon in a confined space - schools are certainly confined spaces with much opportunity to hit an unintended target. 5) After Sandy Hook I was so very personally upset that I proactively turned in an assault rifle that I owned to the local Sheriff's department. They were glad to get it and told me that it would now be used to help keep the people of my county safe, this includes me.... Bottom line: If the tragic death of 20 little kids and 6 very special adults does not compel one to reexamine their own association with guns, or more specifically certain types of guns (assault weapons) , there is no hope for us in terms of being a civilized society. I acted on my beliefs, one assault rifle now gone several million to go...
Jenny
Sun, Feb 10, 2013 : 3:04 a.m.
That was probably one of the most bizarre ramblings I've ever heard... you mentioned many times you turned in your rifle... what do you want.. a medal? Do you think you actually did some kind of good by doing that? My source is msnbc... what is yours? You make comments without a basis in reality. "arm the kids with 50 cal barretts" what kind of stupid point are you trying to make? Your contribution to a solution is nothing more than some weird ramblings. You see, I'm an engineer by trade. Before I jump to illogical conclusions, I analyze the facts. I don't rely on others to formulate my opinion for me. I also use statistics in my daily life. When you realize that your child is less likely to die in a school shooting than being struck by lightning, that should tell you something. When unfortunately incidents like this happen, it doesn't mean the answer is to relinquish your rights as a citizen. Can you comprehend that?
Hesh Breakstone
Sat, Feb 9, 2013 : 12:59 p.m.
How do I feel now? I still feel terrible for the fallen of Sandy Hook... For every link that you may post indicating that a Bushmaster was not used in this shooting I can post multiple links indicating that it was. I'm sorry if the facts upset you to the point that you seek to create new facts and I'm sorry, for you, Jenny, that you also feel the need to resort to came calling when at a factual deficit in a discussion with others. So let's try a different tack shall we? I turned in my assault rifle, proactively, and took the financial hit expecting nothing in return. I acted alone, not at the urging of anyone else, and not because of the existence of any program to turn in assault weapons. It was my own idea spawned purely out of a sincere and deep grieving for the loss of 20 little kids and 6 very special adults. I was and remain frustrated that a government backed solution remains likely too political to become a substantive reality containing any real teeth that may help end the killings in the future. Now my friend what have you done beyond promote more guns in more hands to honor the fallen of Sandy Hook. As unfair as this question is to you, since I am assuming that you even care about the loss of 20 little kids on the east coast, what are you willing to offer as a potential solution to school shootings? More guns, arm the kids with 50 caliber Barretts? How about installing gun ports in every elementary school door? Maybe instead of P&J sandwiches in the kids lunch boxes send them off to school with Claymores? More specifically what I did, turning in one of my weapons was as much in reality for me as it was for anyone else and I am bright enough to know this. I felt helpless hearing about this tragedy and like many males in our world I also felt a very strong need to act in a meaningful way. What's your contribution to a solution?
Jenny
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 3:30 p.m.
Here is more proof from msnbc - http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 go to 0:40 and start listening. They say the bushmaster wasn't used! I mean what other things are going to lie about? I know your "expert marksman" status is a lie as well.. stop spreading misinformation. You are totally discredited. How does it feel?? hahahahah
Jenny
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.
Let me propose a counter argument: How do you go through life denying reality? I just showed you factual evidence. If you want to remain ignorant that is up to you... the real crackpot is you, not me. You are from the same class of naysayers who would deny the earth was round and insist it was flat even when proof was shoved in your face because you cannot stand to change your opinion on something... really sad man. Please, tell me more about your expert marksmanship because I think that is a fabrication as well.
Hesh Breakstone
Thu, Feb 7, 2013 : 11:31 p.m.
North Korea.... sheesh... that one would top off my frequent flier miles nicely! You have your facts wrong my friend, the Bushmaster was the primary "killing" weapon. Personally I don't spend my time worrying about being shot by anyone and if that is what you worry about I am sorry for you. That must be a tough way to live. But as much as you may not wish to believe me some things just will remain the facts such as: Obama was not born in Kenya. The government, which, by the way is made up of us..., is not trying to take your guns or enslave you. Voter fraud is very rare. Sarah Palin could not see the Soviet Union from Alaska.... And Christine O'Donnell may very well be a witch, but a good one perhaps? Todd Akin must have dated a far different crowd than I did... Thanks for the lively debate too.
Jenny
Thu, Feb 7, 2013 : 6:18 p.m.
The thing that I find amusing, is your opinion, although you are entitled to it. If you would like to make some changes, you should pack your bags and move to north korea. Then you will never have to worry about some civilian shooting you (but you might have to worry about disappearing into a secret prison camp). You still have our facts wrong too.. http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/coroner-confirms-no-assault-weapon-used-in-sandy-hook-shooting/ Being an expert marksman and all... seems like you might have a little more insight into these issues...
Hesh Breakstone
Thu, Feb 7, 2013 : 11:39 a.m.
Now the media is to blame.... Please read this link specifically under "Shooting"... : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting The AR, Bushmaster is described as the primary weapon used to kill little kids and the adults at the school. Regarding what the "funny" thing may be here, I personally find absolutely nothing funny about this tragedy. 20 dead little kids, 6 dead very special adults.... time to make some changes....
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 11:18 p.m.
Again, only hand guns were recovered inside the school. The AR-15 was not used to kill anyone. You are incorrect about that, although I understand why you may think that. The media tried to get the naive public to believe that, but it is not the truth. There is documented video of police pulling the AR15 out of a car (not out of the school). Had the ban never been lifted is also a ludicrous statement considering only hand guns were used. In addition to that, you realize you could still buy "assault" rifles under the ban that were already in circulation right? Do you even realize you could just use another rifle just as easily that was not covered by the ban? You know what is funny to me, is that they never released footage from the cameras at the school documenting what really happened... but if you think back to the shootings in colorado in the 90s, they had footage... makes you wonder.
hail2thevict0r
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 11:06 p.m.
Hesh, you should get some facts straight: 1. These are not "high capacity" magazines, they are "normal capacity" magazines. They are a standard issue for that rifle. A high capacity magazine would be one that holds more than the standard. Technicality, I know, but I feel the term is used to gain momentum against gun control. People say, why do you have a problem with limiting High Cap mags, like they are different than standard mags. The reality is that they are, in fact, standard. 2. Bush didn't lift the ban on "assault weapons", all he did was let it expire. Clinton didn't make it permanent, it was a 10 year trial run to see if it worked - it wasn't continued because the government determined it had little, to no, impact on crime. 3. AR15's were still perfectly legal to buy under the previous ban, hence why these bans are stupid. They ban cosmetic features. What happens is that the manufacturers just change the appearance of the gun, not the functionality, and it becomes perfectly legal. This like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding stocks, threaded mussels and things like that have very little impact on the performance of the gun. Once again, they're going after these types of features. Sure, they're trying to ban it by name as well - but all that will happen is you'll see manufacturers make a new firearm with a different name that's perfectly legal to own with the same firepower potential. The point? You can't "ban" your way out of this problem our country is facing and no law will prevent people from doing what that kid did.
Hesh Breakstone
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 9:16 p.m.
The Sandy Hook shooter used a Bushmaster AR-15 type assault rifle and had additional high-capacity (30 round) magazines on his person... I use the word "person" loosely here... This weapon had been banned under the assault rifle ban that was lifted by, you guessed it.... the decider in 2004... Had the ban never been lifted there is a case to be made that this shooting may have never occurred or had a different out come.... The shooter used the AR purchased by his mom, now deceased as well... which was again purchased after the assault rifle ban was lifted. Although I am aware that this is a family publication if more adults had the opportunity to see the carnage perhaps some opinions might change. Caskets built for a child are obviously much smaller and often evoke emotions among feeling human beings simply for the size being as small as they often are or.... in this case were. Many of the funerals were also closed casket as well because, well, I won't go there... 20 dead little kids, 6 dead very special adults.... time to make some changes....
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
I'm not going to endorse guns inside of schools, but I wouldn't rule it out either. In fact, it is well known that Israel has lockers with firearms in them at schools, and there hasn't been a school shooting there involving them. Sandy hook was a tragedy, but you need to face the facts that the price of freedom ISN'T free. You need protect your rights guaranteed to you at all costs.
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 4:40 p.m.
Hesh, what are you talking about?? Please point to your source that states an "assault rifle was used" to kill ANYONE at sandy hook? You realize it was found in a car and wasn't recovered inside of the scene right? Does anyone ever get their facts straight before making asinine comments anymore?
hail2thevict0r
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.
Also, all this legislation has done is cause MORE "assault weapons" to go into circulation. Manufacturers cannot keep up with demand for them.
hail2thevict0r
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
Well, that's your opinion. I'd argue that you clearly don't know much about firearms if you think "assault rifles" have any impact on gun crime or would have prevented the tragedy that happened in Connecticut. No matter what someone else does, it's my right to protect myself with common firearms of the time. It's not up to the government as far as how many bullets I have in a magazine or what physical characteristics my firearm has. They aren't banning the semi-auto nature of a firearm, so if the AR15's are all gone - the next wave of semi-auto rifles under a different name will be just as deadly. The 2nd Amendment has been ruled, by our supreme court, to give citizens individual rights to own common firearms of the time used by the military and police. These are not "weapons of mass destruction". A pump shotgun could do as much damage to a room of unarmed kids as an AR-15 could and that's what people don't seem to want to recognize. The 30 or so seconds that it would take, combined, to reload a shotgun would have no impact on the devastation done that day. Banning types of firearms is not the solution to the problem we are trying to solve, and that's my problem with it. Limiting my rights with what is likely to be 100% unsuccessful legislation is not ok.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 4:11 a.m.
Gun posters should look at the randy Weaver and David Koresh lesson. If you are a traitor, you will pay the price. There is no room for threatening violence against our great nation.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 3:37 a.m.
So, when you own guns with intent to wage war against the U.S. government, is this treason? Is the penalty for treason a death sentence? I'm generally against capital punishment but for militias, it's fine with me.
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.
So, assault weapons are necessary to defend against the U.S. government. I've seen the Michigan Militia - not exactly an elite paramilitary organization (I'm being generous). What's the plan? Hijacking a bus to Washington to capture the White House? An attack on Fort Hood? Terrorist attacks on civilian targets? I just think this is hilarious! Maybe someone should ask Randy Weaver or David Koresh for some hints... They are dead?!? Wow... How did that happen?
Jenny
Thu, Feb 7, 2013 : 7:31 a.m.
Hail2thevict0r, didn't you know that it is trendy to pretend that you know something, to not understand history and to take your constitutional rights for granted? Ratlip2 certainly gets it... It is pretty humorous that ratlip2 has the audacity to say these things: "It is sort of demented that people seen to deify guns. Of all the things to care about in the world, of all the problems, all the issues that deserve our attention and passions, a vigorous subset of the population appear to care about gun rights more than everything else." Really? Well you seem to care about them an awfully lot because you keep making hilarious comments that have no basis in reality. Why don't you stick to the things you enjoy like organic food, going green and drinking fluoridated water. "Guns--purveyors of terror--something that kills and brings misery to so many--" Oh classic... how about "protectors of freedom" instead? How about where there is a higher density of firearms, violent crime is inversely proportional? How about the fact that when dictators take control, they often confiscate firearms from the people as a precursor to democide? "I'm glad I live in Ann Arbor, not somewhere outside Ann Arbor (except Ypsi)." -- Cool story bro. I'm glad I live in a house and not in the woods. I'm also glad I learned how to spell and reason appropriately.
theoracle
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:44 p.m.
NoSUVforME. Randy Weaver is not dead. How did it work out for Randy Weaver? Here's a link so you can educate yourself: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/randy_weaver/1.html
hail2thevict0r
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.
Radlib, Gun are the reason you have rights. Guns are the reason we are free. If you can't see that than you're unaware of our own history.
hail2thevict0r
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.
Well first off, it's their right to be delusional no matter how silly you think they are. As I said above, I think the bigger threat in today's world is not our government turning on it's citizens but the government abandoning it's citizens, see instances like Katrina. If a natural disaster happens that disrupts our way of life for say even a time span as small as 2-3 weeks. You'd be cowering in your closet wishing you had some sort of firearm, especially an "assault rifle".
Radlib2
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 3:43 a.m.
It is sort of demented that people seen to deify guns. Of all the things to care about in the world, of all the problems, all the issues that deserve our attention and passions, a vigorous subset of the population appear to care about gun rights more than everything else. Guns--purveyors of terror--something that kills and brings misery to so many--rarely it is that any good can come from them. I'm glad I live in Ann Arbor, not somewhere outside Ann Arbor (except Ypsi).
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 3:16 a.m.
As I said, the militia is just a bunch of odd balls. That's why I refer to them as the Clown Army. Where is Monty Python when you need them?!?
Radlib2
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 3:01 a.m.
These guys have delusions of grandeur to be sure. They can't wait to shoot some assailant and be the toast of the hillbillies. They refuse to realize that they are far, far more likely to shoot themselves or a loved one. If safety were the issue, they wouldn't have guns.
hail2thevict0r
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 8:11 p.m.
We self impose speed limits but do not limit the speed our cars can go. A sports car that goes 200mph it totally legal, despite it only being legal to drive 70 on almost all major highways. People like to act like there aren't already laws dealing with firearms. They want to act like it's the wild west out there with guns totally unregulated. The fact is, guns are extremely regulated. Modifications to guns are regulated. Where you can use guns is extremely regulated. Who can own them - regulated. Where you can carry them. How you can carry them. How you have to store them in your car. All of that is already regulated. The problem is, it's not enforced or it's impossible to do so until someone commits a crime. I'd argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment today is not protection from the government, it's protection if the government abandons you. It's protection for a natural disaster, terrorist attack or any other event that causes all cell phone towers to go down, and worse, when you call 911 the phone is busy. We're so dependent on government today, and rightly so because it leads to a great standard of life, but it also leaves us extremely dependent on luxury things working right. Gas being at the gas station, the phone working when you dial, the power being on, the food just being nicely there for you at the grocery store. Not to go all "doomsday prepper" on everyone, but even the power being out for a week or two would cause chaos and a situation where you'd probably want the best weapon available to simply protect your home, your life and your belongings.
Ricebrnr
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:25 p.m.
Since several people have called us "paranoid" and no one is legislating or no one is taking away your guns. My response is REALLY?!?!? Again you haven't been paying attention or are WILLFULLY ignorant. D. Feinstein, "Mr & Mrs America, turn them all in" 1995 A. Cuomo, "confiscation could be an option" 2012 W.Clay, "eventually we should ban the ownership of guns" 1993 Go to www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html
NoSUVforMe
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 3:21 a.m.
The proof is a crackpot website? Really? I have. Bridge that's really cheap.
Jenny
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 8:33 p.m.
Right the proof is right there.. its hilarious that anti-gun advocates literally have no clue what is going on in the world around them.
packman
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 11:55 p.m.
What a waste of time...does anyone remember "zip guns"? If the bad guys/gals want firepower they will find a way to get it. After today's trip to Minnesota BO reminds me of me when I had a term paper due in college (compare term paper with the national debt). I would do almost anything (clean off my desk etc. etc.) that was the least bit worthwhile (in my mind) to avoid tackling the real issue. We have a guy in the WH who has never learned the difference between being good and looking good. BO might say "I was too busy solving immediate problems to take care of the real problem." The 7-11 president (take in 7 and spend 11) will pass out treats to buy votes until there are no more treats!
Mike
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:22 a.m.
Our salesman in chief is out trying to sell another bill of goods. He figured he was able to jamb the health care through and that his powers of persuasion will work again here.............In the mean time he fiddles while Rome burns. How you liking those high gas prices? How's your grocery bills? Have any family and neighbors looking for work? know anyone underemployed? How are your local schools, bridges, roads and police departments funding? He won't talk about or try to solve the real problems. He only works on emotional issues.....................because that his his domain that he operates the best in. While he's out selling his agenda nothing is being accomplished with solving our real problems.................four more years...........
Arno B
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 9:13 p.m.
I am waiting to hear what Obama and his Yes-men have to say about the tragic killing of the famous sharp-shooter and his friend recently. Recall that the sharp-shooter was trying to help a wounded military friend at a rifle range. The friend turned around and killed the sharp-shooter and the sharp-shooter's friend. Background checks? Assault rifles? Too much ammunition? Illeagle weapons? None of the above are germane. What say you, gun control advocates?
Mike
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:15 a.m.
NoSUVforMe - at least he didn't die a weak, pathetic, human being bent on disarming his fellow citizens...............
sayzme
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.
Has that gun loving, freedom fighting patriot in Alabama let that poor little boy out of his doomsday shelter yet?
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.
Wow, way to add something useful to the debate. At the very least if you do not understand guns, or like them, you should recognize the necessity to vehemently protect your rights. The fact that you can express yourself freely is also your right... how would you feel if someone was trying to encroach on that right? Instead of making comments that serve no purpose, why don't you spend your time relocating to another country where you have no rights and stay out of this debate. Obviously it is a bit too much for you to comprehend...
TruBlue
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 4 p.m.
I don't own guns but I am glad I have a right to. I am tired of all this gun control talk. If people really don't want guns, lets propose an Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment and vote on it. Comparing guns to cars is silly. Owning guns is a right, driving cars is not.
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.
Actually, Bob, Gov. Cuomo bemoaned publicly that he could not confiscate New Yorkers' guns.
bobslowson
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:40 p.m.
No one said you can't own a gun. No one is trying take away your right to own a gun. The government are not taking the guns you already own. The NRA is nothing more than a bullying lobby group for firearms dealers that only want as much $$ as they can get! They promote fear and paranoia, much like FOX News.
John
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:49 p.m.
Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners. Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population. • About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun. • Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each. Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have. Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally. • Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way. • An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check. • 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers. • The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
NoSUVforMe
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 2:34 a.m.
Thanks, John. I have one last myth: Myth: owners of assault weapons are normal, law abiding citizens. Fact: many but not all are angry, paranoid and suffering from low esteem Men that have been losers for most of their lives. Randy Weaver, David Koresh, other mass killers... Not a coincidence, folks.
Radlib2
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 7:14 p.m.
It was an article in this month's Atlantic--one of out most storied, trustworthy, longstanding publications.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 3:08 p.m.
When you copy-paste you really should give attribution. The proper form would be: "Washington, DC: Weekly Tell-me-what-to-think Email, Democratic National Committee" along with the date of the email.
John
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:48 p.m.
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. • For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home. • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. • In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger. Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer. Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. • In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument. • A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater Myth #7: Guns make women safer. Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. • A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun. • One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates. Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns. Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan? United States Japan Per capita spending on video games $44 $55 Civilian firearms per 100 people 88 0.6 Gun homicides in 2008 11,030 11
L. C. Burgundy
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 10:30 p.m.
So if guns cause violence, why does Japan have a suicide rate close to triple the US rate?
John
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:46 p.m.
Myth #1: They're coming for your guns. Fact-check: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1. Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements. Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively. • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. • In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides. Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys. Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 • Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 3:06 p.m.
"Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0" That's because when they're stopped, then the mass shootings didn't occur.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:25 p.m.
"The gun lobby's contention, or more specifically the NRA's, seems to be that guns should be free of restrictions, that magazines (containers holding the ammunition) should be unlimited in capacity " Nobody is suggesting magazines should be unlimited in capacity, because that is physically impossible.
DonBee
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Anyone really interested in the second amendment and what it means should take the time to read and study this 1994 article that is "reprinted" on the web. The references to various documents in the article from the time of the ratification of the constitution are enlightening. I would suggest that everyone understand the reasons and the history behind our constitution, there were good reasons for what was adopted. The article can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html It was originally published in the Valparaiso University Law Review in 1994.
napoleon
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:51 p.m.
How are chicagos STRICT gun control laws working out? How are the laws in most american cities of illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits working out..detroit, new york, atlanta, LA, lansing, flint? How are those gun free zone laws across america working out? How many car-jackers, rapists, murderers, and burglars legally used a gun during the commission of their crime? How is removing God but having to accept and recognize other religions working out? How is it the persecution of a Christian must be tolerated yet to mock Mohammed is disgusting and intollerable according to our government (Obama)? America(government) is trying to "solve" its problems through control of its people, trying to convince the weak and small minded the government knows whats best for you, and by stepping on the constitution calling it just an old document not related to "todays" world. The ones supporting stricter gun laws are the same ones who opposed the CPL(CCW) law in 2001 or 2002 allowing citizens to carry a concealed gun in the state, with restrictions, after criminal (even misdemeanors) and mental background checks, and completion of approved training. They claimed michigan would become a "cowboy" state, cpl hoders would go on angry shoot em up rampages, road rage shootings would sky rocket, and all the children are going to be scared to go outside. None of these claims/scares happened. The brady bill, strict gun laws, or gun free zones, didnt/hasnt reduced gun violence nor will new gun restrictions/laws. Providing more resources to the mental health system, educating the uneducated of mental disorder signs and gun safety, and quit removing God from America are the right steps to a safer, better USA!
martini man
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:57 a.m.
That far left liberal, Mr Faber, is right about one thing . There IS a lot of fear , anger, and passion, regarding the right to defend oneself against an oppressive government. We are talking about tens of millions who oppose the confiscation of guns from law abiding citizens. And make no mistake ..people like Faber and his far left cohorts, want confiscation as an ultimate goal. They will accept one step at a time, but the GOAL is already set.
AnnArBo
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:09 a.m.
When people are victims of gun violence, they are actually victimized twice, first by the criminal perpetrator, then a seconfd time by the politicians who want to limit their right to self defense.
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 12:22 a.m.
Unfortunately, proponents of gun control measures such as Robert Faber, the author of this article, are usually the most uneducated on the subject. Not only do they not understand the rights guaranteed to American citizens, but they also do not study and understand history. The comparisons "Robert Faber" makes in this article between guns and automobiles are preposterous. I'm actually surprised that AnnArbor.com would even hire someone that is so bottom of the barrel. If the author of this article, Robert Faber, were to take the time to actually do some investigative work, he would see that there are already thousands of laws on the books restricting firearm manufacturing, ownership and usage. "The necessity of protecting our homes and families from the lawless chaos of that period's Wild West, or from the impassioned revenge of some of our cruelly displaced American Indians, escalated the gun trade to the often singular role of protector of the law." Ummm... really? Actually, the reason why we are guaranteed the right to bear arms has to do with tyrannical government and the absolute necessity to keep them in check (i.e. 1776). If you study history, you will realize that the one of the first things that tyrants do, is try to confiscate firearms (Hiter, Stalin, Mao), and usually what follows are gross injustices and democide. "The alleged purpose of privately owned guns always had been either for personal protection or as a sport, using them for target shooting or in hunting. In view of its intended end use it is a bit difficult to comprehend the connection between the love of guns and the demand for their most deadly and extreme capabilities." This is another asinine point by "Robert Faber". Please by all means, show me where in the 2nd amendment it states the right to bear arms is for "sporting purposes" and "hunting"???
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 7:57 p.m.
Also your example of how the average gun owner owns 7 guns is incorrect, despite what you may of read. It is based upon how many people filled out the 4473 form and actually purchased the gun, but this is not the true measure of how many gun owners there are. This is just a myth that anti-gun organizations try to twist as fact... and naive people like yourself believe.
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 7:34 p.m.
I believe your logic is flawed, not mine. Every point you make is wrong constantly as evident throughout this thread. I mentioned those estimates were OLD.. I guess I was right.. you are not capable of understanding LOL... how pathetic. You realize that over 50% is the majority right? You realize how many guns were sold in 2012 right? You also realize that those figures are from 2011 don't you? I mean I can't break it down any more for you... I feel like I'm talking to a 5 year old.
Radlib2
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 5:29 p.m.
A) gun ownership is around 45%, so I don't know where you are getting your numbers. B) the logic you used in a previous post was that because there are around 300 million guns "a majority of households have a gun as logic stands to reason." I showed you why you're logic is fatally flawed. I don't want to type it again, so I'll just paste my previous comment: "Jenny, I'll explain as though you're a third grader, that way we can be sure you understand. You assume the average gun owner has one gun. You also assume the average household has one person. Lousy logic. By using your logic, we would have to assume our population has 780 million since the average household size is 2.6; moreover, as I said, the average gun owner has almost 7 guns, which is why there are somewhere aroung 60 mil. gun owners, most of which are male (I guess it's a macho thing). Go get your GED or something."
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 4:51 p.m.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America Now I know this may be a challenge for you to understand... but I'll try my best... It is impossible to have exact figures because the law permits individuals to not have to register certain firearms. These figures are also from 2011 (the gallup poll). I know you are out of touch with reality, but gun sales in 2012 have been enormous, pushing gun ownership to over the 50% threshold for households by many estimates... therefore, the majority of households in America, have at least 1 firearm.
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.
You are right we do need to invest more into education... that is about the only thing you have been right about. You should stop spending so much money on your education because it appears it has taught you nothing about research methods. Please, explain in detail how you arrived at your conclusion? If there are estimates of over 300 million guns inside of our country, please explain to me how you feel it is outlandish for it to be a possibility that the majority of households have at least 1 firearm?
Radlib2
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 2:56 a.m.
Even if I couldn't spell, at least I can figure out that 300 million guns does not equate to one gun per household. Ehh! Clearly we need to sink more money in our broken education system.
Jenny
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 11:26 p.m.
If you say so...
Radlib2
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:59 p.m.
A TYPO, hardly qualifies as a misspelling. Any idiot can spell chief: don't make such a big deal out of something so trivial.
Jenny
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:01 p.m.
Unusual Suspect - I know, how funny is that comment? With all of that high priced education they still have trouble spelling basic words, that is the best part... haha. Anyone that is truly educated realizes that you don't need a high priced education to be "educated".
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
"I went to UofM and got accepted to Columbia. What about you?" That's really what it comes down to for elitists, isn't it? Comparing the papers in frames on the walls of their office. Sure, you had a good education and got all your book learning done. But you've missed out on everything you were supposed to learn about applying that knowledge in real life. You missed all the life lessons that fall under the category called, "wisdom."
Unusual Suspect
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.
ricebrnr is correct. I personally know a US Army Colonel would chose court marshal rather than act on an order to attack a citizen.
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:56 p.m.
I can tell you put a whole lot of thought into your reply. I may watch FOX news from time to time, but it doesn't mean I believe what they are saying. Also, can you point to the segment you are referring to where FOX news said that Obama is trying to take away all of the guns? I believe you have your facts misconstrued. Like many anti-gun advocates, you have no basis in reality... makes me wonder how you are able to handle your day to day activities.
sayzme
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:22 p.m.
So Obama is now a tyrant that is trying to take away all of your guns? Ridiculous, turn off FOX news.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:28 p.m.
"You want guns to shoot Anericans? I doubt you'd stand a chance if the government wanted to get you." No, it's to prevent American's from shooting Americans.
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 6:56 a.m.
Ricebrnr, I couldn't agree more. As you mention, there are countless examples throughout history when armies are vastly outnumbered, but overcame overwhelming odds. One of the most important examples is the revolutionary war fought here on our own soil! If people want to use that point: " I doubt you'd stand a chance if the government wanted to get you. " they need to also realize that there are still a lot of great men and women in the military who will refuse to harm, or even disarm, law abiding citizens. In addition to that, you might also wonder why gun regulation/confiscation is such a big issue right now if the government truly felt it would be that easy to "get you".
Ricebrnr
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 3:52 a.m.
" I doubt you'd stand a chance if the government wanted to get you. " Everytime this counter is brought up I am reminded of a certain Police Action in Vietnam. The full might of the US military against people hiding in tunnels and building booby traps out of bamboo and our garbage. How about the wars of the last 10 years in the Middle East? Those guys are building bombs and AKs in caves. How's that going again? The number of licensed hunters in the US outnumber that of those in the military. Even then there is a great overlap. How many of them would be willing to join a tyrannical gov to shoot Americans as well? If you don't think that millions of armed civilians doesn't give any tyrant pause, you haven't been paying attention and need to review your history.
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:57 a.m.
Really? You misspelled "chief"... hilarious. I'm also a UofM grad. I'm an electrical engineer. I can do math and I can also spell.
Radlib2
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:53 a.m.
If it were a reason, it was a peripheral one at best. Slavery was another cheif reason. I really don't get it though. You want guns to shoot Anericans? I doubt you'd stand a chance if the government wanted to get you. Take your tin foil cap off your head and move out of your parents basement. And yes, I am quite sure I have more and a higher quality education than you. I went to UofM and got accepted to Columbia. What about you?
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:01 a.m.
Hmm.. another uneducated point. I guess America really is doomed. If you doubt me, why don't you go do some investigation on your own. I'll make it easy for you.. why don't you just go wikipedia it. One of the reasons for inception was SPECIFICALLY for tyrannical governments. If you don't believe that it is possible for us to have tyranny here in America then you are either very naive, dumb or plain and simply uneducated.
Radlib2
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:15 a.m.
Why do people keep rehashing the myth that the purpose of the second is for protection from a tyrannical govt.? The reason, as almost any Constitutional scholar will tell you, was for protection from foreign powers.
TommyJ
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 11:09 p.m.
The 2nd Amendment is not about creating a militia to defend this country from foreign invaders or threats. It is about empowering the people to defend this country against an oppressive government. And from what's going on lately, the 2nd Amendment is sorely needed still today.
Jenny
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:07 p.m.
Bob slow - Actually yes Dianne Feinstein has said on record that is what she would like to do? I didn't expect you to know this fact though... or even know who Dianne Feinstein is. Dianne Feinstein has went from having around $1 million, to over $100,000,000 in a short amount of time after being elected to the senate... let alone been implicated in tons of other insane fraud... http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/01/04/all-the-presidents-women-part-3-diane-feinstein/ And now she wants all the guns.. even though she owns guns, and her body guards have guns... so ummm... yeah bob slow, I would say you are wrong again as usual.
bobslowson
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
From "what's going on today" You think the US government is trying to take ALL your guns away? That's what the NRA keeps saying...paranoid much?
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
"I'm going to buy an assault rifle and defend myself from the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force." Well, if that's who was attacking you, then you would be defending the Constitution by fighting back, because the use of the military against the citizens would be extra-Constitutional.
martini man
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:40 a.m.
You are right Tommy ..thus the attack on gun rights by liberals . Total confiscation od firearms from law abiding people is their ultimate goal , altho they will lie and tell you that it's about regulating assault weapons.
NoSUVforMe
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 12:59 a.m.
You are right Tommy. I'm going to buy an assault rifle and defend myself from the U.S. Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force. My basement will be a fortress. They are all controlled by the UN trying to impose a NewWorld Order. You, me, and other patriots can follow David Koresh into battle.
Vince Caruso
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 9:33 p.m.
Thanks for a well written column. Most gun violence is gun violence against ones one family. Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a member of your own family than an intruder. Many researchers, including at UM, are now looking at guns and gun violence a a clear and present Public Health threat to the community. If your taking money from the Gun Lobby (NRA) then shame on you and your small mind.
Mike
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:02 a.m.
Research is skewed in most cases to meet the hypothesis of the person paying for it. Why waste your money to pay a bunch of researchers to manipulate data unless it is going to come to the conclusion you want it to. We rely too much on "research" and not common sense. People don't think anymore, they just read what researchers put on the internet and so it must be so.................
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:51 a.m.
If you want to see who the real illegal gun runners are, google "fast and furious gun running". OH and since I see you can mindlessly repeat some statistics you heard without citing the source, why don't you start at least regurgitating something useful like these statistics: http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph4.JPG why don't you go on a crusade against the tobacco industry instead?
martini man
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:45 a.m.
Vince ..the black market gun runners will love you and those who adhere to your liberal views . Just like the bootleggers and crooks loved prohibition . This gun confiscation crusade by the liberals is gonna get uglier than even a piece like you or Mr Faber could ever imagine.
Riverman
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 10:15 p.m.
Guns being abused is no different than booze being abuse. But the booze lobby is large and booze is more "acceptable" in society and thus will never be banned again. More laws and enforcement of existing laws have cut the number of DUI arrests but then again the reduction of police staffing maybe affecting the number of arrests too. Banning drugs, guns, booze has not worked and laws have not eliminated the abuse in our society. Americans want something and they will get it whether it is legal or not.
martini man
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:25 p.m.
My thoughts on this subject, and probably those of tens of millions of others as well.....When a psychotic pig slaughters innocent people , the liberals always start screaming for gun control. What they really want is gun confiscation. But something tells me that if/when it happens , most of the people giving up their guns will be law abiding citizens, who wanted them for protection. I sincerely doubt if very many serial killers, psychotic monsters with murder on their minds, thugs, dope dealers , or terrorists, will be turning over their weapons. Anyone planning murder and mayhem probably isn't going to be thwarted by gun laws, no matter how noble the intent of the law. Innocent people will be even more vulnerable, and the criminals will still be armed to the teeth. And as we all know ..the police arrive AFTER the fact. After it's too late..after it's way too late.
sayzme
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 5:24 p.m.
No one is confiscating all of your guns...settle down now. Where did all of this paranoia come from? Rush Limbaugh should be in jail for poisoning the minds of the weak!
Mike
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:09 p.m.
"Since those early days we have established an Army and Navy to protect our rights and developed tanks and battleships and military aircraft to further assist them in those duties. Nevertheless, the ruling of that 2nd Amendment allowing civilians to bear arms still remains an undisputed right.That should be enough to relieve the concerns of the most impassioned gun owners, but seems not to be. " Mr. Faber - this is the reason we want the right to bear arms. We aren't asking for those items that the military has, but we don't want muskets either. The nice thing about this country is you still have the right and you also have the choice. Your choice is obvious. Stay out of the lives of the rest of us. I think the American people are going to draw a line in the sand on this issue. We have a government that is on the verge of economic collapse (remember the Soviet Union?), a negative GDP, high persistent unemployment, a president who has stated he would like to have a national security force that is trained and funded as well or better than our military (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47844). We're asking to basically keep our pea shooters with enough rounds to try and defend ourselves against any and all who might try to do harm with even more firepower. Why is that so hard to understand? That is what the second amendment exists; not for hunting or sports shooting, although most gun owners enjoy those activities............
NoSUVforMe
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
Mentally unfit to own firearms are those that: - think the answer to gun violence I more guns - fear the government and think a militia could stand against the U.S. military - believe that they have Unlimited gun rights while sane people have no rights to restrict guns The choice is simple. Continue on the road to the civilization level of the 3rd world, or be sensible. The NRA has become a dangerous, extremist organization threatening the vast majority of sane and sensible people.
Jenny
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 9:42 p.m.
Ratlip2, before you can explain anything to anyone, at least learn how to spell correctly. You wouldn't even be fit to teach a 3rd grader. Also your example of how the average gun owner owns 7 guns is incorrect, despite what you may of read. It is based upon how many people filled out the 4473 form and actually purchased the gun, but this is not the true measure of how many gun owners there are. This is just a myth that anti-gun organizations try to twist as fact... and naive people like yourself believe.
Radlib2
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:54 p.m.
Jenny, I'll explain as though you're a third grader, that way we can be sure you understand. You assume the average gun owner has one gun. You also assume the average household has one person. Lousy logic. By using your logic, we would have to assume our population has 780 million since the average household size is 2.6; moreover, as I said, the average gun owner has almost 7 guns, which is why there are somewhere aroung 60 mil. gun owners, most of which are male (I guess it's a macho thing). Go get your GED or something.
Jenny
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 6:12 p.m.
Radlib2, explain your logic to me? I would say my logic is spot on. There are are over 300 million guns in America. Your point again, is useless banter... your time would be better spent watching old spelling bee competitions on youtube.
Radlib2
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 9:16 p.m.
Bad use of logic--very bad--Jenny. The average gun owner has almost 7 guns. Nice try though.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.
The government would NEVER turn against it's own citizens! http://lanternreview.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/internment-image.jpg
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 7:05 a.m.
Tru2Blu76, excellent points you made there. It proves my point exactly; the people do NOT trust the government! That is the main reason why you are seeing a huge surge in ammo and gun sales right now. "The trust of the innocent is the liar's most useful tool. " - Stephen King
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 6:25 a.m.
It may surprise you to learn: in response to Obama's sudden, maniiipulative attack on gun owners (approx. 80 million Americans), gun and ammunitiion sales around the country have reached an all time high - so great is the demand that stocks of several kinds of guns and ammunition are at zero nationally. In Michigan, the rate of sign-ups for concealed pistol licenses has surged from its 10-year norm by 50% (= approx. 3000 /mo.) Since Oct. 2002, the number of concealed carry permits has grown over 700% from ~50,000 statewide to over 351,000 as of Jan. 1st. The NRA reports new memberships have reached a record pace, about 300% the previous record. So please continue your mindless paranoid squawking about guns and gun owners. Your kind is the best recruiting tool Armed America could hope for. :-) And BTW: all your anti-gun Democrats in Congress are already aware that they're about to reduce their own party to "3rd world status." Can't miss mentioning : if you go out in public at all, it's statistically certain you're bound to be passed by men and women carrying guns - many of them semi-automatics with 10, 12, 15 and 17 round magazines. You obviously don't even know your own environment or you wouldn't be insulting the people who surround you every day. It's actually kinda funny to see you expressing your ignorance on the topic you misguidedly claim to know. :-)
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.
Really? Threatening the "vast majority of sane and sensible people" Well, there are more than 300 million firearms in America. I would say most families have at least 1 firearm in their home as logic stands to reason. Oh, I guess you are right also... you shouldn't fear the government at all.. that makes total sense. I guess I should believe in santa claus and the easter bunny too.
Riverman
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:05 p.m.
Most 3rd world countries have strict gun control and are ruled by dictators or have bogus elections. I suspect you deem everyone who doesn't agree with your version of rights is mentally unfit.
Clay Moore
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 6:20 p.m.
Robert Faber: "Accusing our public officials of trying to subvert the Constitution by confiscating all privately-owned guns is a serious and fanciful insult to our traditions, to our leadership and to the essence of our democratic system." There is nothing that you could accuse our public officials of that could be construed as a serious and fanciful insult. Beginning with the interloper impostor sitting in the oval office (when he's not golfing) to a majority of career politicians who if not corrupt when elected are most certainly so when they retire. To think otherwise is an insult to one's intelligence. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
Rodzzz
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:37 p.m.
People truly believe that a citizenship with pistols and rifles could rise up against the government if it becomes tyrannical? I hate to break the news, but this isn't the 18th century. The 2nd Amendment was written over two centuries ago in a very different society. Have a read of http://rationalexaminer.com for a discussion of the issues.
Unusual Suspect
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:41 p.m.
And the 1st amendment was written before MSNBC, so Freedom of the Press does not apply to them.
dsponini
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:50 p.m.
Yep...those people exist and they are paranoid and delusional...I bet half of them wouldn't pass the background check..
Jenny
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 7:12 a.m.
The at a blot on society? What are you trying to relay? The real threat to society is the failing educational institutions as evident here in this thread.
bluetonguedlizard
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:24 p.m.
"The liberty of any person to own a military assault weapon and high-capacity magazine and to keep them in their home is second to the right of my son to his life." Dave Wheeler, father of Sandy Hook victim
Ricebrnr
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 1:52 p.m.
The liberty of any LAW ABIDING person to own a military STYLE assault weapon, NORMAL capacity magazine and to keep them in their home is EQUAL to MY DUTY to PROTECT my FAMILY and THEIR LIVES.
walker101
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:20 p.m.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die. You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?" You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed. And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need! Parent of daughter that was killed in Columbine addressing Congress, he does not blame the NRA or gun advocates but rather our priorities or refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence
a2citizen
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:16 p.m.
"...our history has changed..." Really?
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:14 p.m.
Why are anti-gun nuts posting?
GoutMouth
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.
Quit yer rabble rousing!
Boo Radley
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 11:54 a.m.
The comment I was replying to here has been deleted ... making this comment of mine sound like an unrelated rant.
Greg
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.
Couple of points. 1. Comment that pools kill kids and yes most kids use pools well. Not the point, most kids and adults us guns well. Argument supports nothing. 2. We would not be so against gun control if the clearly and repeatedly stated goal of the anti gun groups was not the total elimination of our access to guns. Only those they approve of (the rich) could hire guns for protection.
sayzme
Tue, Feb 5, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
"the total elimination of our access to guns" ...and the paranoia continues....
dsponini
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.
"total elimination of our access to guns" Really? Who believes this??
GoutMouth
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.
Radlib, if the gun is not loaded I would definitely feel better about leaving my untrained accident prone kid with the gun than leaving it alone with the swimming pool.
KJMClark
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 12:12 p.m.
"Even with proper training, handling of guns is incredibly dangerous for kids." Heard of Nerf guns? Water pistols? Laser tag? BB guns? How about water wings, pool noodles, or swim vests? You should see my son's Nerf gun collection - all purchased by his *very* anti-gun grandparents. My wife and I shook our heads many times at the incongruency of that. And most of his friends have similar collections.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 9:09 p.m.
Here's some anecdotal evidence: a third of 8-12 year old boys pulled the trigger when they find a handgun. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract?sid=96fc3066-8fc5-4c58-b518-1940841c762b
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.
Even with proper training, handling of guns is incredibly dangerous for kids. Not o for swimming. That is the big difference, quit ignoring that! Who would let a kid mess around with a gun until they're at least a teenager? Maybe under hyper-supervised conditions. That's it. When someone can't swim, they tend to stay away from the deep end. When one does this, it is fairly safe. How does a kid safely play with a gun?
Brad
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.
Swimming isn't very dangerous AS LONG AS YOU CAN SWIM. Quit ignoring that. It's dangerous because of lack of appropriate training. Just like handling guns without first receiving proper training would be risky, while if you had the appropriate training it would not be that way.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.
Yes is is a risk, but quite negligable compared to a gun. The point is, you can't ompare the two. No sane parent would leave a 7 year old alone with a gun for even a second. It woud not be unusual, or even statistically dangeous if a parent spaced off for a minute while a 7 year old child swam. Swimming isn't very dangerous. I swim almost ever day, have for years, bu I've never seen a kid come close to drowning.
Brad
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:10 p.m.
"Also, if a kid uses a gun unsupervised, there is a very good chance someone will end up dead or seriously injured." Repeating it won't make it true. If a non-swimming kid is left unsupervised near a pool that would be a huge risk.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.
What!? Nobody has, at least not in the mainstream, said eliminate guns. Never, not once. What you are doing is fear mongering. Also, if a kid uses a gun unsupervised, there is a very good chance someone will end up dead or seriously injured. The comparison between pools and gun is one others keep making, which is an obvious logical fallacy. Any parent who would trust their kids with guns before a pool is either lying or an idiot.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.
One of the great draws of America is that you're free to be a Faber. One of the sad side-effects of freedom is that it encourages the Fabers who want to take it away from you.
GoutMouth
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:17 p.m.
lol I don't want to be a Faber.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:05 p.m.
Saying that because swimming pools and cars kill more people so therefore they should be banned too is asinine. Most kids use pools safely. Only because of the sheer volume of useage does it account for more deaths. A pool's primary function is to provide entertainment, whereas a gun's is to project bullets into things. Were guns used by or near childern anywhere near as often as they use pools, many more childern would die because of guns. The same argument holds true for cars, knives, and bats.
GoutMouth
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.
If you are a parent that leaves your kid unsupervised around either a pool that they can get into or a gun, then you are a deadbeat parent.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 5:02 p.m.
Even if a child is properly taught, if a child is left unspervised with a gun, that child will very likely misuse it. Misuse of a gun mostly leads to an innocent dying. This is not the case with pools. The chance is minute that a kid will drown. The only reason it is the number on killer is based on volume. Virtually all kids use pools, most do not use guns, and when they do,it is under the stricist supervision.
brigd
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:54 p.m.
Pools are the leading cause of accidental deaths for children. Most of these deaths are caused by parents not watching their children. Again most accidents involving a gun in a child's death comes from parents not teaching their children proper gun safety.
Radlib2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
Wrong, absolutely wrong. A pool's function is to hold water so people can swim in it. Yes, if misused, one can die; we can say that about anything though. If a gun is misused, it is likely one will die, as a gun's function is to kill.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:25 p.m.
A pool's primary function is to hold water. Used improperly, innocent people can die, particularly children. A gun, when used properly, will only be used to eliminate people threatening your life or the lives of your loved ones.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:58 p.m.
Passion and fear pay key roles in the debate over gun control - perfectly stated - ONLY Mr. Faber completely misses the passion and fear openly displayed by all gun control advocates. He also "misses" somehow that the current president of the United States PROMPTLY went on TV to exploit the emotional/passionate stampede displayed by his emotional/passionate voter base (i.e., gun phobic voters). "Now we too often find ourselves seeking protection from our untrained, heavily armed neighbors ..." - That's what Mr. Faber thinks of his neighbors. It's an attitude and mind set frequently displayed by anti-gun mavens. How about Mr. Faber and all the other "neighbors" who're untrained and unarmed in the face of attacks on the street and during home invasions? Interesting how Mr. Faber DEFINES by generalization and character assassination - ALL those who chose to get training and the most effective arms to meet potential threats. The choices are simple: go through life irresponsibly vulnerable, depending on public resources like police - or - go through life prepared to meet potential threats which WE ALL READ ABOUT every day. I have little regard for those who boastfully advertise their own vulnerability because it encourages criminals to believe they can attack anywhere, any time, including all the places everyone goes. It's like sheep advertising mutton and leg of lamb. Human beings are not a prey species, Mr. Faber, despite your passionate and emotional (and probably neurotic) fervent wishes.
DJBudSonic
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:12 p.m.
Maybe this comes from living in Ann Arbor, but I know more people that would move to ban automobiles than would move to ban firearms. There are many transportation substitutes for the automobile, but most rely on corporate or government management to succeed, and those that do restrict the freedom of movement in time and place. Would that be acceptable to most people? The substitutes for firearms also rely on corporations and government action, to secure a universal peace, to create a world of equality, free from need, free from tyranny, free from fear, etc. Does anyone believe that this is possible? If not, then maybe it is time to drop the comparison between the automobile and the firearm, and remember, use of only one of these is constitutionally guaranteed.
DJBudSonic
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:14 p.m.
P.S. I know bikes are a self-reliant mode of transportation, but it is impractical to bike your family to visit your aunt in California.
DonBee
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.
This is an emotional issue for people, right up there with abortion and immigration. Compromise is tough on any of these issues. Both sides scream any time someone even suggests changes. Mr. Faber does what he always does, takes a position out on the limb. I believe he is honest about his feelings, but as with many of his columns he misses the mark on his analogies. Cars and Guns - really? There is no constitutional guarantees about cars, none at all. It would have been a stronger column if he did the comparison on one of the other hot button issues. While, I think some level of compromise makes sense, there are many laws on the books already that are poorly enforced. There were good reasons for the second amendment, when it was written and now. But - there are good reasons for some level of regulation on guns. The question gets more complex every time technology moves - machine guns, bazookas, artillery, missiles, military aircraft and explosives are banned. The hard part is with technology, there are now 3-D printers that can print working high capacity magazines. How long until they can print guns? How do we regulate guns when anyone can manufacture them in their basement?
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.
Nicely done, DonBee, you got my "thumbs up." :-) But re: "While, I think some level of compromise makes sense" - I can only suggest that the best "compromise" is to adopt mandatory training in firearms for anyone wishing to buy a gun (of any kind). Just to be clear: this idea is overwhelmingly supported and endorsed by all NRA members. It's not really a "compromise" though because one side insists (hysterically, endlessly) that no amount of training is guaranteed to prevent "some deaths." But society & government both agree to training for other life or death activities/occupations (like for doctors, fire fighters, police & the military). How does the value of proper training suddenly disappear for civilians? It doesn't: so it's up to anti-gun types to accept that such training is valid and readily available (much of it thanks to NRA firearms instructors who train even police). So exactly who's refusing compromise? Who's been refusing compromise after every sensational shooting incident for the past 45 years? You're going to see such refusal from both sides because one side knows there's a standard, readily available remedy which existed BEFORE the U.S. Constitution while the other side insists that only confiscation of 300 million guns is the "ideal remedy."
picabia
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:35 p.m.
"...There is no constitutional guarantees about cars, none at all." Mr. Faber is hardly the first to make a comparison between guns and cars; the pro-gun lobby does so frequently.
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:50 p.m.
What does the Michigan constitution have to say on the matter? How would either constitution be changed to fix this obvious misunderstanding? Since it is clear not the intent of either constitution for people to have guns for self defense, why hasn't it been changed yet?
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 11:21 p.m.
My apologies, then, EyeHeartA2 .... you disguised it a little too well. ;)
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:16 p.m.
@Boo I forgot to mention I was being just a l...i...t...t...l...e sarcastic.
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 6:46 p.m.
Picabia, I completely agree with you that case law makes it clear that the types of weapons and other regulations concerning their sale are not unconstitutional under the interpretations of 2nd Amendment rights. I made a similar statement in my first comment to this column. But I also stand by my fervent belief that none of those regulations against "assault weapons", high capacity magazines, or other restrictions will ever prevent a mass shooting tragedy.
picabia
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.
Neither the US Constitution nor the Michigan State Constitution outline an absolute right to own firearms. Even the Heller decision states: " ... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.2" Under the 1st Amendment, speech that incites violence is not protected speech, nor does the 1st Amendment protect slander and libel. No one thinks these restrictions unreasonable, but when considering the 2nd Amendment, many people vociferously insist that it describes an absolute right, which it clearly does not.
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.
"Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." That is the wording in the Michigan Constitution's Bill of Rights. So, how can you say it is not clear that we have a right to own guns (arms) for self defense?
glacialerratic
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/business/the-ar-15-the-most-wanted-gun-in-america.html?ref=business&_r=0
outdoor6709
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.
Unfortunatly the gun control debate is a distraction. The U.S. is $16.6 trillion in debt, 8.9 million people have left the work force in last 4 years. Unemployement is said to be 7.9%, but is closer to 15%. Thanks to Sen Levin and others no federal budget in 4 years. $1 trillion in deficit spending. So what is the biggest threat to US gun owners or the government breaking the country?
Superior Twp voter
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 6:07 p.m.
BINGO!
Tom Todd
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:40 p.m.
Americans always rehashing old problems and not creating any solutions,we are doomed.
Wolf's Bane
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:34 p.m.
Folks, the the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was written during a different era of our country's evolution. Anyone that attempts to interpret the amendment literally, as it was written over two hundred years ago, is to taking an old argument out of context. Our foundation fathers were trying to protect our fledgling nation from invaders. Twenty dead 1st graders and 7 dead teachers simply requires us to act now and repeal the 2nd Amendement. Take away the guns from everyday citizens and make army, police, and licensed hunters go through rigors (international) background checks prior to being issued firearms.
Mitch
Wed, Feb 6, 2013 : 1:22 p.m.
No, this just proves how ineffective the laws are. This was a Gun Free Zone by a kid on legal drugs. Who failed to buy his own gun. Shot his own mother for hers. And only stopped because he heard a police siren. What about the mall shooting that only took 2 lives, because the shooter only saw a gun?
nunya III
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:11 a.m.
they have gun control
nunya III
Mon, Feb 4, 2013 : 2:10 a.m.
wolf bane, please move to china
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.
So because the Bible was written (330 AD) about 1700 years ago, you're absolutely sure that it's outdated and should be repealed??!! What a clever idea!! Ho-ho! You seem to have a great knack for taking a fact and twisting it into an inference which is erroneous. The Constitution was written in a different era, that's true. But it STILL provides the guaranteed right to defend with equal or greater force (look up the law on self defense, you'll see this phrase used again and again). That means, the Constitution was brilliantly written to take into account future developments BECAUSE the authors knew about technology's evolution AND they looked forward to a time when the individual's rights (freedoms) were well recognized. Your approach proves only that you have no respect for the freedoms we are guaranteed and that you "prefer" your own neurotic over-blown fears to be the determining factor in how everyone lives (to keep you safe and irresponsible).
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.
I thought that modern interpretation of our Constitution is the reason we have the Supreme Court of the U.S.
B2Pilot
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.
I thought from the title this opinion might go a different direction "passion and fear" Fear of being a victim of escalating crime and passion and enjoyment that comes from shooting sports. The automobile argument was weak; more kids are killed in swimming pools than with guns. Most laws around pools ask that reasonable attempts be made to limit access to pools. Yet that is still the top killer of kids.- think about that should some action be taken ?
outdoor6709
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:12 p.m.
Gun control has a history that should be looked at. http://www.thedailysheeple.com/back-to-the-future-what-history-teaches-about-gun-confiscations_122012 I'm sure citizens in those countries thought getting rid of guns wa s a good thing.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:46 p.m.
This is why citizens in gun-free Britain call themselves.... subjects. :-)
Boo Radley
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:10 p.m.
The US Supreme Court cleared up the controversial "Militia" wording of the Second Amendment in 2008. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense. It seems many people did not get the memo ... And, let's not forget the Michigan Constitution Bill of Rights, where the language was simplified: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Yes, the types of weapons can be regulated, but many want to go far beyond that. And, the truth is, there is no law or restriction possible that can ever prevent the tragic shooting incidents that have occurred.
motorcycleminer
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Mr. Faber should'nt worry... his "heavily armed " ( polyspeak for anything more than a rock ) will all be more than glad to give him a yard sign declaring his abode is a " gun free zone " ..therby telling all criminals , you know the ones who have a single digit salute to all laws in the first place, that they should stay away, so he can live in peace and harmony with the universe....duh....
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:44 p.m.
I agree - Phil Faber hasn't learned the value of the phrase: Glocks are better than rocks. lol!
Dog Guy
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:08 p.m.
Two current sequential mlive.com stories illustrate armed neighbors being neighborly: "Coach at Detroit King High fatally shoots attacker that approached him and two female students" and "Baldwin couple slain in Missouri; authorities suspect runaways from troubled youth camp". Where the heck does Faber live that "Now we too often find ourselves seeking protection from our untrained, heavily armed neighbors - and that is a level of security that can be as deadly as the crime"?
RobertJ
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:06 p.m.
I wonder if Ann Arbor Arms knows a photo from their store is attached to this opinion column.
Brad
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
At least this time they attributed it properly. Last time they just used it and attached it to a pretty whacko opinion piece.
Brad
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:01 p.m.
Probably the best automobile-gun comparison would be banning the Hummer H3 because it looks like a "military grade" Humvee. Sure it isn't the same vehicle, but darn, it sure looks scary.
Cold
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.
But let one suggest putting some reasonable regulations on abortion ...
Joe
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 5:47 p.m.
your right to kill the unborn is an unalienable right protected by Hollywood, and mainstream progressive media, your right to defend your born child's life is the sole responsibility of the state.
Dog Guy
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:45 p.m.
There is a difference, Cold, in those debates: The disarmers are acting in the Puritan morality tradition of forcing other people to be good (a busybody hobby). The abortionites have history or anticipation of personal benefits at baby's expense. If abortion is in any way wrong, many millions of moms, dads, and grandparents must face conscience (an extreme concern). Abortion is never to be discussed, debated, questioned, or even mentioned in polite society. Cold, go to your room!
RUKiddingMe
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 1:53 p.m.
Your comparison to the laws regrding automobiles is logically flawed. You choose two distinct potential changes to gun control and justify them with the fact that there are laws concerning automobile use. However, there are several existing gun control laws that equate to the automobile laws already. Just as there is already car control, there is ALSO already gun control. And, just as there are incredibly stupid and irresponsible or crazy people with guns, there are those same people that own cars as well. But when drunk driving kills so many people, they don't create new ways to keep cars out of the hands of people, or impose government-enforced limitations on all cars in terms of how much they can weigh and where they can go. Also, I contest your assertion that the second amendment was to address only specific concerns like an armed populace in the absence of a military, or a sparsely controlled frontier. I believe that when the consistution and its amendments were drafted, every care was taken to make these universal, timeless protections, regardless of technology or the fickle whims of politics. Nothing was written just to make sure people could hunt, or assist in fending off foreign invaders. There are other logical fallacies and invalid claims in this article, but they are common ones shared with most shortsighted gun control enthusiasts.
Top Cat
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 1:47 p.m.
Proponents of big government and opponents of individual liberty always say that the Constitution is out of date. It is a tribute to James Madison that they say that.
Joe
Fri, Feb 8, 2013 : 5:47 p.m.
Tru2blu76, those same people who say the constitution is out-dated hate the bible and burn it.
Tru2Blu76
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 4:53 p.m.
Yes and the same people who claim the Constitution is outdated seem not to recognize that the Bible was written (original version) around 330 AD. They'd do just as well to claim the Bible is outdated. But the anti-gun types aren't real good at either history or logic.
GoNavy
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.
We are no longer citizens of the United States - we are straw men. We are no longer gun owners - we are "untrained, heavily armed neighbors." It's not clear where the author goes wrong, but I believe it's somewhere around his attempt to link the regulation of driving with the regulation of firearms. More so than guns, this is a nation of automobiles. I'm not certain if Mr. Faber has ever attempted to take an automobile away from anybody - it's exceedingly difficult. We see of individuals on the road with multiple drunk driving offenses, multiple license losses, and no insurance. They are probably driving next to you on the freeway on a daily basis. When it comes to "physical examinations...well into old age," It's not clear if Mr. Faber has ever tried to get the keys away from an ailing citizen stricken with dementia or loss of physical capabilities. In short: Good luck. Let's call a spade a spade: These "well reasoned" arguments eventually must reach the point where they are put into action. I've noted in the past that "mental health exams" are highly nebulous and sound great on paper, but instituting them is another matter. Who decides? What mental issues will count? The low hanging fruit ("schizophrenia") is "easy" - but what about social anxiety? Does the diagnosis last for life? Can it be appealed? What if two professionals disagree? All questions which must be answered before you can take somebody's Constitutionally protected rights away. We are not your "heavily armed neighbors," Mr. Faber. We are just American citizens who would prefer to live our lives free. I have already acquiesced to a background check when I bought my gun, a smaller magazine when I picked it up, and my finger prints with the sheriff when I asked to carry it around. There isn't much more I'm going to acquiesce to, considering that our rights in this case were important enough to find themselves writte
AnnArBo
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 7:06 p.m.
Mr. Faber gets to the heart of the matter. Government trying to decide who is fit for liberties, and who is not. Car ownership is not constitutionally guaranteed, and is not a good analogy, our founders felt the the power of an armed citizenry is so important a liberty as an ultimate check against govenment, they enshrined that right in our constitution, and nothing in its written word is arbitrary. I'm sorry Mr. Faber, but when it comes to constitutionally protected rights, our govenment cannont "redefine" how and who they apply to.
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.
Funny you should bring up dementia.
GoNavy
Sun, Feb 3, 2013 : 1:32 p.m.
*written into the Constitution over 200 years ago.